MGS4 Officially started!

A forum to talk about stuff that doesn't fit in other categories, such as general Kojima games discussion, other games, etc.
User avatar
Jonathan Ingram
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Old L.A.
Contact:

Post by Jonathan Ingram »

ReasonWhyNot wrote:And now they don't allow director's to hide their shame for their work? That's ridiculous. If you guys got an F on a test in school, you wouldn't want to have the teacher announce it to everyone just because you're ashamed of your work.
I think the main difference here is that nobody gets paid for doing badly in exams, whereas the director will still get paid for churning out a rubbish movie.
ReasonWhyNot wrote:Though any new age garbage can't compare to the classic films of yesteryear. In my opinion, it's pointless to even bother creating something profound in this day and age. It'll only be lost by the masses to big budget effects and romantic-comedies with Adam Sandler.
You sound like my grandfather would if he wasn't dead. And so what if the new movies that are being made are "lost"? As long as some people appreciate them; and even if they don't, if the people who made them enjoyed the process and were pleased with the result, what does it really matter? I'm sure Paul W.S. Anderson will be sleeping soundly, despite what he's done, because to have committed the atrocities he has, he must believe he did a good job.

Movies are still an infant art form really, and to say "new age garbage can't compare to the classic films of yesteryear" is not only absurdly defeatist, but just plain ridiculous. I'm not going to list movies in the last ten years that have been brilliant, but if you really believe what you wrote, I can't really understand where you get any enjoyment out of the art of movies, if there's nothing new on your horizon. Maybe you just need to see some new movie that will change your outlook.
"But nothing is permanent... only change"
randomwab
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by randomwab »

Jonathan Ingram is right here, i admit that many old films are great, but alot of new movies are also great and would kick the living crap out of some classic titles. At the end of the day though, is your own opinion, i myself do judge alot of big blockbusters on seing the trailers which although i would not say are classics after seing them, i still feel like i have had a very enjoyable experience, and to me thats all that matters, for me to bring something away from it
User avatar
Omega579
Runner
Posts: 193
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 8:52 am
Favorite Game: Street Fighter II
PSN: Omega579
Location: Florida

Post by Omega579 »

Jonathan Ingram wrote: Movies are still an infant art form.
Really? Thousands of movies have been created all over the world and in countries where you would never think could make them. Although the technology of movie making is always evolving I would hardly call Movies an infant art form. I'd consider digital art and hip hop more an infant art form than movies.
randomwab
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by randomwab »

I think he means it by the fact that paintings and photos have been around for alot longer, and movies are constantly evolving in how they are made, shot, ect. Movies have been around for a while now, but there is still more to come of them.
ReasonWhyNot
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:45 pm

Post by ReasonWhyNot »

Jonathan Ingram wrote:You sound like my grandfather would if he wasn't dead. And so what if the new movies that are being made are "lost"? As long as some people appreciate them; and even if they don't, if the people who made them enjoyed the process and were pleased with the result, what does it really matter? I'm sure Paul W.S. Anderson will be sleeping soundly, despite what he's done, because to have committed the atrocities he has, he must believe he did a good job.

Movies are still an infant art form really, and to say "new age garbage can't compare to the classic films of yesteryear" is not only absurdly defeatist, but just plain ridiculous. I'm not going to list movies in the last ten years that have been brilliant, but if you really believe what you wrote, I can't really understand where you get any enjoyment out of the art of movies, if there's nothing new on your horizon. Maybe you just need to see some new movie that will change your outlook.
That's fine if the people who make shitty movies enjoy what they've created. I'm speaking as a viewer who doesn't give a damn about the filmmaker's feelings about his overall quality of work. Do you have the same philosophy towards bad games? You think, "Well, this game sucks, but as long as the programmers enjoyed making it, I'm happy." I don't give a damn how much the director and his crew either loved or hated making a certain film. It's the viewer's opinion that really counts. And what difference does it make if it has a fanbase? Think if you lived your whole life only listening to one type of music or eating one type of food. You may love what you eat and listen to, but you wouldn't have the best judgement if that's about the only thing you'd ever tried. You wouldn't realize what you were missing. Maybe that isn't the best example, but I tend to think that the people who praise the shitty films probably haven't seen a wide selection of films to begin with, so they're not basing their opinions on much experience. What does it matter? I don't know. This shit's just my opinion. If you've seen films of all ages and cultures and still regard Catwoman as a classic, than so be it. More power to you for having an original opinion.

Also, I didn't mean to say I don't love any modern films. I was just speaking brashly. But the films that are fielded to appeal to mass audiences these days are just so lackluster. It's almost pointless going to the theatre, because there probably won't be anything good playing. I remember going to the movies this summer, when the only decent thing to watch was Dodgeball. But there are plenty of great movies still being made. But they're not getting the wide spread release they deserve. There are some great independent films being made that most people won't have any interest in seeing. There are brilliant foreign films with a better sense of reality and human emotion than almost any Holywood picture of today, though most people won't want to sit through anything that they need to read. And occasionally Hollywood will produce a fine picture here and there. Usually a lot of sleeper hits, but there are a few big ones as well. But when you stack all the great films next to the schlock, the schlock just overwhelms them all. And there was a time when that wasn't so. There was a time when Hollywood would actually produce quality pictures that were respectable. But not anymore it seems. Even a lot of the pictures that are trying to be serious lack depth. And that's what I mean when I say that classic Hollywood is better than Hollywood of today. But I really shouldn't have said films in general. I can't judge all the films in the world, because I haven't seen them all yet.
User avatar
Jonathan Ingram
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 399
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:34 pm
Location: Old L.A.
Contact:

Post by Jonathan Ingram »

ReasonWhyNot wrote:I'm speaking as a viewer who doesn't give a damn about the filmmaker's feelings about his overall quality of work.
ReasonWhyNot wrote:And now they don't allow director's to hide their shame for their work?
You seem to be contradicting yourself here...
Omega579 wrote:I'd consider digital art and hip hop more an infant art form than movies.
But both of those fall into higher categories of visual (static) art and music. No one could suggest writing is an infant art form, but certainly there is an argument for language writing/poetry as being one. My point was really that by no stretch of the imagination has everything possible in the medium of film been accomplished.

I think that you were attacking movie-goers, ReasonWhyNot, which I totally agree with as a valid argument. Movie-making sadly is an economic venture for most people/companies, so lowest common denominator trite certainly prevails, but if people in the time of "classic Hollywood" as you say had as much spare money and time as we do now, and there were as many people with that much spare time and money as there are now, I think a hell of a lot of movies would have been produced just to get people in the theatres. Just like today.
ReasonWhyNot wrote:I can't judge all the films in the world, because I haven't seen them all yet.
That's the spirit!
"But nothing is permanent... only change"
ReasonWhyNot
Second Lieutenant
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 4:45 pm

Post by ReasonWhyNot »

Jonathan Ingram wrote:
ReasonWhyNot wrote:I'm speaking as a viewer who doesn't give a damn about the filmmaker's feelings about his overall quality of work.
ReasonWhyNot wrote:And now they don't allow director's to hide their shame for their work?
You seem to be contradicting yourself here...
Yeah, I am. It's only human of me. But that all doesn't matter, since it's my personal opinion that I don't give a damn about a director's feelings. Of course, if I was a director, I'd give a shit about my own quality of work, and I wouldn't like not being able to cover up for it if I wanted to.
ReasonWhyNot wrote:I can't judge all the films in the world, because I haven't seen them all yet.
That's the spirit![/quote]

I've still seen plenty. Enough to judge certain things. It may not be fair, but I spare myself the trouble of having to watch a lot of shitty films in order to make an opinion on them. Though had I actually seen White Chicks or Catwoman, then my distaste towards them might be even stronger than it is now. I still feel sick just from watching the trailers.
Post Reply